IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10608

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

CASEY ROSE, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:14-CR-367-26

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Casey Rose appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess 500 grams 

or more of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, possession of 

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon, as well as his resulting life sentence. For the first time on 

appeal, he argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights 

when it denied his motion to substitute counsel and allowed him to proceed pro 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10608 Document: 00513938877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2017
No. 16-10608

2 

se. He also asserts for the first time that the district court violated his due 

process rights and denied him the right to present a defense when it denied his 

pretrial motion for a continuance to conduct legal research. However, he has 

abandoned this claim by failing to adequately brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993; FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9); see also Beasley 

v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Alternatively, he affirmatively 

waived the claim by withdrawing his request for a continuance at the pretrial 

conference and specifically asking the court to proceed with trial as scheduled. 

See United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Rose’s claim that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights 

by denying his request for the appointment of substitute counsel is without 

merit. As the district court determined, Rose failed to establish grounds for 

replacing his counsel, Scott Miller Anderson and substituting new counsel. 

The court found Rose’s assertion that counsel had lied to him to be incredible, 

and this court will not revisit that determination. See United States v. Hoskins, 

910 F.2d 309, 311 (5th Cir. 1990). The record indicates that Rose’s request was 

based on his disagreement with counsel’s strategy, which is insufficient to 

warrant the substitution of new counsel. See United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 

313, 353 (5th Cir. 2007); cf. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14 (1983).

The record further shows that Rose understood the risks of selfrepresentation and clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly expressed his desire 

to proceed pro se. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 815-21, 835 (1975). 

Rose does not now argue that his invocation was unknowing, involuntary, or 

equivocal, nor does he contend that the district court’s colloquy was 

inadequate. Rather, he contends that the court ought not to have allowed him 

to proceed pro se given his obvious lack of legal knowledge and training. 

However, because Rose clearly and unequivocally invoked his constitutional 

 Case: 16-10608 Document: 00513938877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2017
No. 16-10608

3 

right to self-representation after extensive questioning, the district court had 

no choice but to allow him to proceed pro se as to do otherwise would have 

violated his Sixth Amendment rights. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 

177 n.8 (1984); Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835-36; see also United States v. Sanders, 

843 F.3d 1050, 1055 (5th Cir. 2016).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-10608 Document: 00513938877 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2017